From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miquel Raynal Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:08:58 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 00/25] MTD defconfigs/Kconfigs/Makefiles heavy cleanup In-Reply-To: References: <20181209180747.24575-1-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> Message-ID: <20190220080858.70ca276f@xps13> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Vignesh, Vignesh R wrote on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:50:18 +0530: > Hi Jagan, >=20 > On 09/12/18 11:37 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hello, > >=20 > > During my last project about SPI-NAND support in U-Boot, I discovered > > when modifying Makefiles a confusing organization where: > > * Sub-directories/files are compiled from the root Makefile > > * Commands are at the root of everything > >=20 > > I sent a fist series a few weeks ago to move Makefile entries in their > > respective directories (which needed to be reworked). Since then, I > > have been working on clarifying all this for the MTD subsystem and > > here are the main points of such re-organization: > > * Rename CONFIG_MTD into CONFIG_DM_MTD to reserve CONFIG_MTD to what > > is called today CONFIG_MTD_DEVICE. > > * Fix build dependencies in defconfigs, like: "UBI and NAND depend on M= TD". > > * Fix the Kconfig files to reflect these dependencies (as defconfigs > > have been updated, nothing should break). > > * Simplify the Makefiles: compiling the drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ > > sub-directory should just depend on MTD being compiled and the NAND > > core as well, there is absolutely no logic to make it depend on > > CMD_NAND. > >=20 > > New green Travis CI build for the third version of this series: > > https://travis-ci.org/miquelraynal/u-boot/builds/463486099 > > There are three Sandbox tests that are failing, they have not been > > break by this series. The following Travis test has been done on the > > commit on which has been based the series and shows the same errors: > > https://travis-ci.org/miquelraynal/u-boot/builds/463593006 > > =20 >=20 > I would like to revive this series. With some rebasing, this series > should still apply as is. >=20 > Jagan, did you get a chance to look into this series? Any comments? Thanks for reviving the series, actually I was sure it was merged by that time as AFAIR there was no more opposition to it. Jagan, I see it is still marked 'new' on patchwork and assigned to you, would you mind applying it? Thanks, Miqu=C3=A8l